Global Warming: Bjorn Lomborg's Stern Report Review

[amicus]

I do disagree, vehemently.

Perhaps are not aware of the forced abortions and prison sentences imposed on Chinese parents who attempt to hide a second child, especially a girl child as boys are still more highly valued in that society.

You may not be aware of 'block wardens' who monitor each family and concentrate on females of child bearing age, reporting possible pregnancies and even affairs and meetings between young men and women. Talk about surveillance and lack of privacy rights.

You also may not have heard estimations of the degree of social upheaval that a generation of 'single child' families is causing and what is happening to those 'single' children as they mature and join society.

I don't take your assertion that, 'something had to be done quickly' and 'only a totalitarian government could exert sufficient force to bring about the change. Any solution that destroys human choice and rights is a bad idea.

http://www.susps.org/overview/birthrates.html

"...It takes a period of time equal to the average life expectancy (approximately three generations or 73 years in the U.S.) for a reduction in fertility to be manifested as a change in actual population numbers.."

Your 'century' before change takes effect was not quite correct, by over half, if you estimate changes in first, second and third generations.

I do not know the exact correlation between the industrial revolution and decreased birth rates. I do know that birth control pills were not a factor, nor was the 19th amendment, although it did hasten the change as did the various birth control devices that have become available in recent history.

If only you and others like you would use your marvelously gifted minds for something other than the god-awful utopian schemes of how you can best control and manipulate society to suit those stupid dreams and perhaps facilitate an easier transition from oppression to freedom in many parts of the world, for examply Iraq, what a benefit it could be.

ami

(Edited to add: searching keywords, birthrate industrial revolution...

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Clark - JEEA.pdf

I had to type that in as the pdf link does not copy....you can also find it by search the above mentioned keywords)

 

[Tuomas]

Why is everyone harping on about CO2? I mean, sure, it does capture heat, but there are a lot of other, more significant chemicals that affect world temperatures, like water and methane. According to IPCC, methane has 21 times the retention power over carbon dioxide. Moreover, atmospheric methane levels have increased exponentially over the past three decades. Water also retains a significant amount of heat in the atmosphere. And, as temperatures rise, more and more water will be added to the atmosphere, creating a chain-reaction type effect that will push world temperatures through the roof.

Although CO2 could be construed as a problem, CO2 levels are currently at a history low in geologic terms. In the Jurasic period, for example, CO2 levels were over 400 times higher, and if we go back to the carboniferous period, they were as high as 6000 times current levels. Even so, there were ice ages turing those periods. Carbon Dioxide is not the only thing affecting the environment.

If we also consider that the average world temperature over the last billion years has been 22ºC, and that it currently is arround 12º, we are actually in an ice age that has been in effect over the last 700,000 years. The Earth is supposed to be a lot hotter.

So, actually, we can do something about Global Warming without even touching CO2 levels. We can go after human methane emissions and have a much more significant effect in staying the inevitable rise in global temperatures, and actually make money. You see, methane is usually released into the atmosphere through landfills, where each tonne of rubbish can create up to 150m3 of methane in less than a month. If we consider that an average household of 2,5 people produces over 6Kg of trash every day, that 33million m3 of methane in the US alone. And this is largely independant of economic status. China procudes an excess of 120million m3 per annum.

In terms of actual effect on the environment, that is equivalent 3.2billion tonnes of CO2 (tCO2e).

And this is easily recaptured through a very cost-effective percolation system, that would allow us to capture and scrub those huge amounts of methane that are litterally going to waste. One m3 of methane, combusts to be equivalent to one gallon of diesel fuel. Obtaining this methane is cheaper than solar, wind, coal, hydrolic and even natural gas, not to mention completely harmless to the environment. Aditionally, methane can be compressed and used in regular cars (with one small, very cheap adaption), with absolutely no sacrifice in motor power.

So, why aren't we falling over eachother to get a piece of the LFG action? Because they are. Several large corporations, most significantly Toyota, are working to retain methane and put it to good use. Methane cars will never be popular among consumers, of course, but many companies are buying into the methane market in a bid to save transportation costs while improving the environment. Shipping companies, such as Maersk-Sealand, have thousands of methane-powered vehicles. UPS is another large company that has methane vehicles.

Not that anyone here really cares, of course. They just want someone else to do something on their behalf. Make it illegal to drive SUVs or something.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Why is everyone harping on about CO2? I mean, sure, it does capture heat, but there are a lot of other, more significant chemicals that affect world temperatures, like water and methane. . .

Although CO2 could be construed as a problem, CO2 levels are currently at a history low in geologic terms. In the Jurasic period, for example, CO2 levels were over 400 times higher, and if we go back to the carboniferous period, they were as high as 6000 times current levels. Even so, there were ice ages turing those periods. Carbon Dioxide is not the only thing affecting the environment.

If we also consider that the average world temperature over the last billion years has been 22ºC, and that it currently is arround 12º, we are actually in an ice age that has been in effect over the last 700,000 years. The Earth is supposed to be a lot hotter.

My primary response to what you say is Neonlyte's point that no one really has a clue how all this will play out, to which I will add no one has raised the issue of natural feedback loops that could potentially cancel out greenhouse gases and make the whole thing moot. (Ex. Clouds hold heat in, but also reflect sunlight back into space.) The understanding of such things is very limited. The entire global warming "threat" is almost an exercise in trying to predict the next tornado in Oklahoma based on recent reports of a butterfly flapping it's wings in China - you can create a model that demonstrates it, but so much is left out of that model that it's purely an intellectual parlor game, not a basis for massive changes in public policy (I.E., huge new powers and resources taken from civil society and given to politicians and burueacrats - to government, that is.)

I wanted to share what I heard a geologist saying on C-Span a while back. He was kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth, kowtowing to the global warming orthodoxy, but also saying some very interesting things about ice ages. They last a long time, and have phases. We're actually in one right now, just in an "interglacial" period in the midst of it. Significantly, he said that when glaciation begins it can happen very quickly - not in millennia, but in centuries and even decades. He wasn't making any predictions or "threats," but it did put things into context. You think oceans rising a foot or two means trouble, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen northern Europe and North America under hundreds of feet of ice.

 

[Pure]

hi ami,

thanks for the link and the facts.

it appears England from the start of its industrial revolution took something like a 170 years to make it to a time of low birth levels.
From the 1890s, the period of great decline begins, then it's about 100 years till the present period.


Whether China in the 1960s would be like England in teh 1890s, who knows, but you're still talking 100 years.

Here is an excerpt from your source:

In England the average women gave birth to nearly5 children all the way from the 1540s to the 1890s. Figure 1 shows the grossreproduction rate (GRR), the number of daughters born per woman who lived to 50, by decade. In the England 10-20% of each female cohort remained celibate. Thus for those who married the average number of births per woman was close to 6.

The “demographic transition” to modern fertility rates began
only in the 1890s. By the 2000 English women gave birth on average to less than 2 children.

I think if you look at India, with its more lax approach, you see that probably the Chinese were correct to take a faster approach.

 

[Tuomas]

My primary response to what you say is Neonlyte's point that no one really has a clue how all this will play out, to which I will add no one has raised the issue of natural feedback loops that could potentially cancel out greenhouse gases and make the whole thing moot. (Ex. Clouds hold heat in, but also reflect sunlight back into space.) The understanding of such things is very limited. The entire global warming "threat" is almost an exercise in trying to predict the next tornado in Oklahoma based on recent reports of a butterfly flapping it's wings in China - you can create a model that demonstrates it, but so much is left out of that model that it's purely an intellectual parlor game, not a basis for massive changes in public policy (I.E., huge new powers and resources taken from civil society and given to politicians and burueacrats - to government, that is.)

I wanted to share what I heard a geologist saying on C-Span a while back. He was kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth, kowtowing to the global warming orthodoxy, but also saying some very interesting things about ice ages. They last a long time, and have phases. We're actually in one right now, just in an "interglacial" period in the midst of it. Significantly, he said that when glaciation begins it can happen very quickly - not in millennia, but in centuries and even decades. He wasn't making any predictions or "threats," but it did put things into context. You think oceans rising a foot or two means trouble, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen northern Europe and North America under hundreds of feet of ice.

In 1960, there was one of the largest earthquakes recorded in history off the coast of Chile. The entire coastline sank from between 1 and 7 feet, and there was tidal wave recorded to be 30m -over 100ft- high that washed as far as two miles inland. Only a few thousand people were killed, and less than a year later, the country had returned to normalicy. The island of Chiloé, specifically, sank an average of 6ft into the pacific ocean. However, no towns were destroyed, or people displaced because of the rise in water levels. Sure, the quake and wave were horrible disasters, but the actual "rise" in water levels really did not affect the island. And that was six feet!

Ocean levels rise and fall anywhere from a 4-5 feet (pacific islands) to almost 21 feet (Canadian Marritimes, Prince Edward Island) due to the tide. Atmospheric preasure can add almost a foot and a half to that variation. Exceptionally low preasures (like in a hurricane) can cause tidal surges of over six feet. Now, add waves to the top of that.

The point I'm getting at here is that costal areas are used to the ocean going up and down, so an additional few inches, or even a foot will not really change anything -since most of the the barriers and constructions are built to withstand twice as much change as that recorded in normal tides and storms. What will happen is that coastal areas will become more vulnerable to storms, but it's not like huge, low-lying areas (like Bangladesh) will be flooded because of a one or two foot rise in ocean levels.

Which brings me back to the idea of global cooling. For the last 700,000 years, the world has set into an iceage pattern. Cycles of 100,000 years of "cold" spells alternate with 15,000-20,000 year periods of "warm" spells (the difference between cold and warm is less than a degree celcius). Currently, we are 18,000 years into the present "warm" spell, were average world temperatures are closer to 13º, instead of the "cold" average closer to 12º. Ice ages last for about 10million years, so it's very unlikely we are coming out of it now. Assuming absolutely no influcence by humanity, we could expect the world to slip into another iceage (where glaciers almost completely covered Canada, and portions of the US) sometime before the year 4000. Of course, we will all be dead by then. In fact, it might almost seem reasonable for us to pump out lots of CO2 to stave off the devastating effects of world cooling that will be affecting our ggggggggrand children -assuming that affluence has not completely killed our reproductive drive by then.

Conclusion? I agree with Neonlyte that -in terms of Global Warming- we really can't know what is going to happen. That shouldn't stop us from trying to gather more data, however.

Certainly, though, this conclusion should allow us to turn our atention from Global Warming and deal with more serious ambient issues, like particulate atmospheric contamination that causes deseases to the lungs; the depletion of food stocks, particularly in the ocean; our need for sustainable natural resources, like energy, metals, forestry products and other raw materials; and, most importantly, land in which to house the billions of people which seem to keep popping up everywhere. Oh, and let's not forget to deal with povery while we are at it

 

[Pure]

Tuomas,
T: more serious ambient issues, like particulate atmospheric contamination that causes deseases to the lungs; the depletion of food stocks, particularly in the ocean; our need for sustainable natural resources, like energy, metals, forestry products and other raw materials; and, most importantly, land in which to house the billions of people which seem to keep popping up everywhere. Oh, and let's not forget to deal with povery while we are at it

P: firstly, most of those problems are the fabrications or vast exaggerations of leftish treehuggers who hate America.

secondly, to the extent that any of them exist, like perhaps conservation of forests, governments can only fuck things up. the giant forestry corporations, if left alone, will 'conserve,' i.e., manage supplies 'cuz it's in their own interest. and several already do things like massive tree plantings.

the giant corporations, guided by entrepreneurship and creativity-- which exists nowhere in goverment--can solve any problems, where they do exist; and make a profit for all the mom and pop shareholders as well. THAT is the American way.

 

[Tuomas]

Tuomas,
T: more serious ambient issues, like particulate atmospheric contamination that causes deseases to the lungs; the depletion of food stocks, particularly in the ocean; our need for sustainable natural resources, like energy, metals, forestry products and other raw materials; and, most importantly, land in which to house the billions of people which seem to keep popping up everywhere. Oh, and let's not forget to deal with povery while we are at it

P: firstly, most of those problems are the fabrications or vast exaggerations of leftish treehuggers who hate America.

secondly, to the extent that any of them exist, like perhaps conservation of forests, governments can only fuck things up. the giant forestry corporations, if left alone, will 'conserve,' i.e., manage supplies 'cuz it's in their own interest. and several already do things like massive tree plantings.

the giant corporations, guided by entrepreneurship and creativity-- which exists nowhere in goverment--can solve any problems, where they do exist; and make a profit for all the mom and pop shareholders as well. THAT is the American way.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not American, then

 

[Pure]

here is the conclusion of the Clark paper on Human Capital, Fertility and the Industr

ial Revolution.

6. Conclusion
The Industrial Revolution and the Demographic Transition are the two
great forces that explain the upward march of modern incomes. So far they have stood as independent phenomena, the Industrial Revolution not leading in England to any decline in fertility till over 100 years later. Our instincts suggest that there is some underlying connection between these events. The difficulty is to connect them in a way also reconciles the differences in fertility behavior in cross section in the pre-industrial world, the transition period, and the modern world.

 

[Tuomas]

Not to forget that condoms and other anticonceptives have only been widely available since the 1960, which could explain why the Industrial Revolution had a delayed effect. Even so, it it is pertinent to observe the more affluent reaches of society during the Renassance or even the Victorian period, and see that they had comparitively fewer children -in spite of lacking modern anticonceptive measures

 

[amicus]

Tuomas, Roxanne..my sincere and heartfelt thanks, I think I almost shed a tear, at your rational approach to the subject.
A small story, if I may...I was directed to Literotica a little over three years ago by the owner of the AllPoetry site, who suggested my work might find a better reception here than at AP, so he consequently banned me and I submitted a few stories here.

Amazingly, to me, a hand full of reads and votes at AP turned into thousands of reads and hundreds of responses from Lit readers and even a $100 check signed by Laurel, I think, as a monthly prize winner.

So I poked around the site and finally discovered the AH during the heated political period prior to the 2004 general elections.

I found a totally one sided left wing hate Bush group grope and decided to wade into the fray. Only the late Colleen Thomas dared differ with the mass majority of lefties here and she was mild, patted on the head and accepted as the 'token' conservative and tolerated.

But I was not as amiable as Colleen and came fully armed and slashed and burned my way through SheReads, Cantdog, GaucheCritic, Sweetsubsarah, Tatelou, Pure and dozens upon dozens of others who fell beneath my sword point, but amazingly, kept bouncing back again with the same refrain.

Global warming, along with abortion and gay rights were some of the big issues and it remained one sided, Amicus against the hordes, chuckling as I wielded my sword down a rose petal strewn path.

In the past couple years, a few other brave souls have dared face down the left, some maintained...some backed off from the oft times venomous encounters.

But you two, a a handful more, have justified my belief in truth willing out and reason overcoming faith.

So once again, though we most likely do not have vast areas of agreement, I am ever so pleased to read your work and happy to have you here.

Thank You!

amicus

 

[Pure]

tuomas,

hi tuo

tNot to forget that condoms and other anticonceptives have only been widely available since the 1960, which could explain why the Industrial Revolution had a delayed effect. Even so, it it is pertinent to observe the more affluent reaches of society during the Renassance or even the Victorian period, and see that they had comparitively fewer children -in spite of lacking modern anticonceptive measures

P: but the real question tuo is when if ever a third world country like China, India or Kenya would *ever* reach that degree of affluence for its majority. Arguably, never.

in any case we have examples of countries doing littlle or relying on voluntary measures. We have China's authoritarian approach. Since there's been a good 40 years, what does the evidence show?
Which have slowed their pop. growth and how much and what's the trend?

back to the facts, ami; that's what an 'objective' approach dictates.

---
for any current problem, like fish depletion, the same applies (join our fish thread, tuo). if things are NOT too desperate and are NOT *allowed to progress to that point,* one has time for voluntary and incentive based approaches (ones that preserve freedoms).

ironically, folks like ami also favor leaving alone these problems until the solutions necessitate sacrifice of liberty.

 

[dirtylover]

Plant trees:


(1) They help reduce CO2 and produce oxygen - - easy way for countries to balance the C02books.

(2) They act as a buffer - - e.g. in arid regions they restore the water cycle, shown on a large scale in Southern France.

(3) Excellent habitat

(4) Great fuel

(5) Great building material.


My two cents worth - - - CO2 and global warming are very obviously a big problem - I mean, we can see its effects, can't we? Things that generate greenhouse gases and pollutants are thus negative - -

e.g. one study showed that standing in Hammersmith, London has the same
effect as smoking 40 ciggies a day!

Solution: implement policies that deter people from using cars, especially big ones; encourage green industry - this also results in less need for oil wars with other countries; ...


To surmise: Yes, there is a very big problem, now let's figure out the best way to fix it.

 

[Pure]

sounds very sensible!.... but are you sure you don't have it in for the US?

 

[Tuomas]

hi tuo

tNot to forget that condoms and other anticonceptives have only been widely available since the 1960, which could explain why the Industrial Revolution had a delayed effect. Even so, it it is pertinent to observe the more affluent reaches of society during the Renassance or even the Victorian period, and see that they had comparitively fewer children -in spite of lacking modern anticonceptive measures

P: but the real question tuo is when if ever a third world country like China, India or Kenya would *ever* reach that degree of affluence for its majority. Arguably, never.

in any case we have examples of countries doing littlle or relying on voluntary measures. We have China's authoritarian approach. Since there's been a good 40 years, what does the evidence show?

Which have slowed their pop. growth and how much and what's the trend?

As a point of definition, China (and North Corea) is a "second world" country -although, technically, the term has become obsolete with the fall of the Soviet Union. It would be better if you used the more correct term, "underdeveloped" countries -in the case of Kenya- and "developing nation" in the case of China or India.

Why wouldn't a developing or underdeveloped country not that level of affluence? Do you think your people are somehow better that they can reach development on their own, while others can't? Developing nations have reached levels of affluence equivalent to the US twenty or thirty years ago. They still have some catching up to do, but there is no doubt in my mind that proactive countries like China and India can reach equivalent development levels to Europe, Japan and the US.

China's authoritarian approach shows that more factors than law are necesary in determining population. China's birthrate remains stubbornly positive. By comparison, Argentina's population has relatively stagnated after achieving higher levels of income during the 80's. Although Argentina's birthrate remains positive, it is falling at a much faster rate than China's, particularly as Argentine weath spreads to more isolated areas. Neither abortions or wide-spread use of anticonceptives (as is the case of China) have been the sole factors in reducing population growth. I think another important factor is education.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . Solution: implement policies that deter people from using cars, especially big ones; encourage green industry - this also results in less need for oil wars with other countries.

Here's an effective way to acheive this without expanding the power of bureaucrats and politicians:

Impose a new energy tax that is revenue neutral because it is accompanied by an equivalent cut in the income tax, and is socially just because it is also accompanied by a graduated, refundable income tax credit, which compensates those with lower incomes for their higher energy bills.

Here are definitions that will explain:

Energy tax (or "carbon tax"): A tax on all forms of fossil fuels used for heating, electricity and transportation – petrol, diesel, natural gas, coal.

Revenue neutral: The net effect of the tax changes are that the government collects no more and no less revenue that presently.

Refundable income tax credit: If you owe less than the amount of the credit the government sends you a check for the difference.

Graduated: The value of the tax credit gets lower the more you make, and disappears above a certain income level (like $35,000), depending on the number of dependents (kids).

Benefits:
This would help the environment by increasing the incentive for every person and business to conserve. The lower income tax would compensate taxpayers for the higher energy tax, and help the economy by increasing the incentives to work, save, study and invest. The refundable tax credit would hold the poor harmless by compensating them for the higher energy tax, but wouldn't diminish their incentive to also conserve.

I propose a $2/gallon tax on petrol and diesel, and equivalent rates for other fuels. Phase it in over a number of years. I'm willing to go higher on the rate.

 

[Pure]

let's get this straight. it's an incentive to save on use of carbon based (fossil) fuels.

so i buy 1000 gallons of 'petrol', gasoline, and have to pay 2$ tax per gallon, or $2000.

but there is an 'equivalent cut' on my income tax of $2000.

so whether or not I buy the 'petrol' my situation is unaffected.

INDEED, had i bought and used 2000 gallons, my income tax offset is $4000, so i'm no worse than if i'd bought 1000 gallons.

that's an incentive?

 

[Tuomas]

Here's an effective way to acheive this without expanding the power of bureaucrats and politicians:

Impose a new energy tax that is revenue neutral because it is accompanied by an equivalent cut in the income tax, and is socially just because it is also accompanied by a graduated, refundable income tax credit, which compensates those with lower incomes for their higher energy bills.

Here are definitions that will explain:

Energy tax (or "carbon tax"): A tax on all forms of fossil fuels used for heating, electricity and transportation – petrol, diesel, natural gas, coal.

Revenue neutral: The net effect of the tax changes are that the government collects no more and no less revenue that presently.

Refundable income tax credit: If you owe less than the amount of the credit the government sends you a check for the difference.

Graduated: The value of the tax credit gets lower the more you make, and disappears above a certain income level (like $35,000), depending on the number of dependents (kids).

Benefits:
This would help the environment by increasing the incentive for every person and business to conserve. The lower income tax would compensate taxpayers for the higher energy tax, and help the economy by increasing the incentives to work, save, study and invest. The refundable tax credit would hold the poor harmless by compensating them for the higher energy tax, but wouldn't diminish their incentive to also conserve.

I propose a $2/gallon tax on petrol and diesel, and equivalent rates for other fuels. Phase it in over a number of years. I'm willing to go higher on the rate.

I like the system, although I would go for tax credit, instead of RTC, just so people don't get the money in their hands, because being like pure, they might not understand it. or maybe I'm not understanding it...

An alternate system would be to apply a tax to the petrol, and the revenue from that is used to contruct roads. That way, roads are financed only by the people who use them directly (and indirectly through an increase in transporation cost, just as they benefit from roads by using transportation), and it relieves from payment people who don't use roads or cars.

Generally speaking, the reason the US uses so much fuel is because Americans commute in private vehicles. This, I think, is a more a social consecuence, than an economic one -because who, given the choice- would want to live in the ghetto?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I like the system, although I would go for tax credit, instead of RTC, just so people don't get the money in their hands, because being like pure, they might not understand it. or maybe I'm not understanding it...

An alternate system would be to apply a tax to the petrol, and the revenue from that is used to contruct roads. That way, roads are financed only by the people who use them directly (and indirectly through an increase in transporation cost, just as they benefit from roads by using transportation), and it relieves from payment people who don't use roads or cars.

Generally speaking, the reason the US uses so much fuel is because Americans commute in private vehicles. This, I think, is a more a social consecuence, than an economic one -because who, given the choice- would want to live in the ghetto?

Actually, your "alternative" is the system now used in the U.S. The gas tax is the closest thing to a user fee that government imposes on most people. They steal some of the money off the top for boondoggles like mass transit (which don't make any sense in most metropolises, because commuter patterns are very different from the old pattern of into the center in the morning in and out from it in the evening). But for the most part the gas tax revenue goes into the highway trust fund and is converted into asphalt and concrete.

This system I propose would be controversial because it would move away from that user fee structure and convert the gas tax into a general government revenue source. Politically as well as economically that's why it's necessary to offset it with dollar-for-dollar income tax cuts.

BTW, I specify a refundable tax credit because people at the low end don't pay any income tax. If it's not refundable they will be screwed, with higher energy bills and no offset.

 

[Tuomas]

Actually, your "alternative" is the system now used in the U.S. The gas tax is the closest thing to a user fee that government imposes on most people. They steal some of the money off the top for boondoggles like mass transit (which don't make any sense in most metropolises, because commuter patterns are very different from the old pattern of into the center in the morning in and out from it in the evening). But for the most part the gas tax revenue goes into the highway trust fund and is converted into asphalt and concrete.

This system I propose would be controversial because it would move away from that user fee structure and convert the gas tax into a general government revenue source. Politically as well as economically that's why it's necessary to offset it with dollar-for-dollar income tax cuts.

BTW, I specify a refundable tax credit because people at the low end don't pay any income tax. If it's not refundable they will be screwed, with higher energy bills and no offset.

I see. Well, the case of the United States is clearly different from where I live. Here, there also is a tax for road construction (which amounts to 40% of the total gas price) and it is quite effective at raising the price of gas -it's almost US$6 per gallon. However, this tax does not affect the poor here, because the poor largely do not use petroleum-associated energy: they use public transport, wood heating, and everything else is either electric or natural gas (natural gas does not pollute as much as gasoline or diesel, so it would not need a specific tax). So, given the economic and social reality of this country, it works well.

However, the US is different. I've always been of the opinion that the US should switch from a direct income tax to a more progressive Value Added Tax (VAT), particularly considering trade constraints. The US has a serious ballance of trade problem that could be solved with this system. If such were the case, then it would be easier to tie in a specific tax for petroleum.

Although my knowledge of the US tax system is limited, I do think you are right about refundable credit for lower-income households. Otherwise, it could turn into a scam system, where more affluent people "buy" credit from poorer people. Unfortunately, it has a rather high political cost to implement. ("You're making poor people pay more for gas!" etc.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I see. Well, the case of the United States is clearly different from where I live. Here, there also is a tax for road construction (which amounts to 40% of the total gas price) and it is quite effective at raising the price of gas -it's almost US$6 per gallon. However, this tax does not affect the poor here, because the poor largely do not use petroleum-associated energy: they use public transport, wood heating, and everything else is either electric or natural gas (natural gas does not pollute as much as gasoline or diesel, so it would not need a specific tax). So, given the economic and social reality of this country, it works well.

However, the US is different. I've always been of the opinion that the US should switch from a direct income tax to a more progressive Value Added Tax (VAT), particularly considering trade constraints. The US has a serious ballance of trade problem that could be solved with this system. If such were the case, then it would be easier to tie in a specific tax for petroleum.

Although my knowledge of the US tax system is limited, I do think you are right about refundable credit for lower-income households. Otherwise, it could turn into a scam system, where more affluent people "buy" credit from poorer people. Unfortunately, it has a rather high political cost to implement. ("You're making poor people pay more for gas!" etc.)

Kind of off topic, but I thing VATs create more problems than they would solve. For one thing, they are not transparent; people should see and feel the effect of taxes, not have them hidden in the price of goods. Actually, I like the proposal to move the income tax payment deadline to the day before the election - I want the taxpayer/voters howling when they go to the polls!

 

[Pure]

tuo,

have a heart for your deluded marxist buddy.

explain why a gasoline tax, of say $2, where the losses to a given taxpayer are made up to him on his income tax, has an effect in shifting/discouraging his use of fossil fuel.

i'm also somewhat at a loss to see why the 'free market' is being tampered with for some environmentally nutty theory about oil depletion. artificially inflating a price of gasoline robs legitimate profits from the oil companies, who can be trusted to manage the world oil supply (since it's in their interest to do so.)

 

[Tuomas]

Kind of off topic, but I thing VATs create more problems than they would solve. For one thing, they are not transparent; people should see and feel the effect of taxes, not have them hidden in the price of goods. Actually, I like the proposal to move the income tax payment deadline to the day before the election - I want the taxpayer/voters howling when they go to the polls!

hehe, agreed I agree, as well, that is the downside of a VAT tax. But, even with direct income taxes people are not showing much consideration for tax rates ... The idea would be to implement the taxation system in such a way that the consumer has to pay the taxes to the government directly, instead of going through the producer as a middleman.

And it is off topic, otherwise I would bring up my objections to income-based taxation, and the evils of progessive taxes

 

[Tuomas]

have a heart for your deluded marxist buddy.

The transplant waiting list is too long, sorry

explain why a gasoline tax, of say $2, where the losses to a given taxpayer are made up to him on his income tax, has an effect in shifting/discouraging his use of fossil fuel.

You forget the time factor. Because you are buying the gas and paying the tax now, you pay a higher rate at the pump. This money will be refunded, but only at the end of the tax year (like current tax rebates). Consecuently, you do pay out of pocket right now, and have less disposable income.

However, I didn't understand this as being a direct relationship: you don't get back personally the amount you spent on fuel, but rather the entire tax group does. Or, to explain the mechanism a little better:

The tax is imposed on fuel, an extra $2 per gallon. Let's say US consumers use 20 million barrels a day, which is 262.8billion gallons. That's over half a trillion dollars in revenue that the government is getting from fuel tax -and therefore does not need to collect from income tax. So, the $525.6 billion is divided among the tax payers and given to them as refundable tax credit. But, the refund is not proportional to your consumption, but to your income ("graduated"). That way, if you spend $4,000 on gas tax, at the end of the year you will get a $5,256 credit on your income tax (since there are about 100million taxpayers in the US). If you pay $6,000 in gas tax, you will still get $5,256 in tax credit. Therefore, the less gas you use, the more disposable income you have.

Of course there are a lot of additional details, but that's the broad idea of the programme.

i'm also somewhat at a loss to see why the 'free market' is being tampered with for some environmentally nutty theory about oil depletion. artificially inflating a price of gasoline robs legitimate profits from the oil companies, who can be trusted to manage the world oil supply (since it's in their interest to do so.)

Actually, artificially inflating gas prices does not rob the company, but the consumer. If you raise taxes on a certain item by, say 1%, it now costs the company 1% more to produce that item. Since the company has to maintain profits to continue functioning, the company raises the price of the product by 1% to compensate. It happens all the time -which is why the consumer price index invariably jumps every time taxes are raised.

In fact, that is the whole idea of this tax incentive programme, that when the tax is applied, it will be above the current fuel price -ergo, company profits on a per-gallon basis will remain unaffected. However, since consumption will inevitably drop, it will be expeted that companies will have to raise prices in order to compensate for the loss of revenue, further increasing the price incentive for customers not to buy fuel, or use alternatives.

The thing is, the energy market is far from "free market" in any sense. In fact, petroleum prices are being kept artificially low by producing countries in an effort to keep the developed world from switching to alternate fuels. You have to remember that 80% of world petroleum production is not managed by private enterprize, but buy government corporations. Thusly, the price of fuel is largely regulated by political motives rather than economic needs or market efficiency. Witness of that is the 1973 oil crisis. Another is 7-11's decision to not use Venezuelan petroleum because of Hugo Chávez's threats.

On the other hand, fuel production is largely regulated by OPEC cuotas and has nothing to do with demand or supply. That's why prices jump so easily during shortages, because the supply is artificially inelastic.

Had fuel prices been left alone, they would probably be somewhere around $150 a barrel, or about $9 per gallon at the pump. This tax incentive merely is an atempt at getting the demand more inline with the real supply, and break the western world's artificial dependancy on petroleum.